Call the FCC? - Update:
It appears that some viewers were upset with a Fox cameraman's focus on a particular t-shirt during the Philadelphia Eagles-New Orleans Saints game last week -- and not because they were Eagles fans. The American Family Association is asking its members to file complaints with the FCC. Stay tuned.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Call the FCC? - Update:
- Call the FCC?
Really? There can be "no doubt" that Fox intentionally tried to bring fines upon itself?
Who makes this crap up, anyway?
I don't think the FCC will do much.
The AFA. They don't seem inclined to let reason stand in the way of their hysterical outrage.
Yes
I dunno, she seemed kind of skanky-looking to me.
Of course, all the ironic posts on blogs of "why isn't this fined?" only makes fines more likely. The FCC only issues fines in response to complaints, and publicity of any sort makes complaints somewhat more likely.
While I tend to think these complaints are silly and a distraction from important issues (which the proponents probably see as a feature rather than a bug), I’m not sure that the FCC is unreasonable in seeing this as an increase in the number of complaints. If more people are sending complaints via email even if it is as a result of an orchestrated complaint and it takes less effort to send the letter, then it really is more complaints because presumably they really are upset over whatever it is they’re complaining about. The problem I think some people have is giving a complaint from a “form letter campaign” the same weight as someone who actually took the time to compose their thoughts.
What I think would be interesting is if when the FCC starts to receive a massive surge of complaints they segregate the ones which are obviously form letters and break it down in their statistics. Something like “last month we received 1400 complaints, 1350 of which consisted of identical email form letters written about the exact same thing.”
Does anyone know if the complaints the FCC received are available online? It might be interesting to see what the breakdown really is.
My complaint, whether form or non-form, should count just the same. The AFA and other organizations are providing a useful service, enabling families who otherwise wouldn't have the time or means to file a a complaint with the FCC.
Have you ever considered that the average mother or father (who wants to raise decent children) might not even know where to begin to complain about stuff like this?
It's the culture of public problems. The route to power is to make up a ``public problem'' and take ownership of it.
Today's rhetorical strategies are outlined by sociologist Joseph R. Gusfield (_Contested Meanings : The Culture of Alcohol Problems_ U Wisc 1996), and the list can be taken as a how-to primer or as an explanation of modern dysfunctional government.
How hard is this?
Because some people believe (and I tend to sympathize with this position) that because it is so easy to “click and send” someone else’s letter rather than write your own, that they ought to be weighted differently as these orchestrated campaigns by a small minority of people may distort the impression the FCC has of what people are thinking. The FCC made a point of saying that it has received an increase in the number of complaints and has used that as a rationale for cracking down on what’s being broadcast over the airwaves. If the increase in complaints is really because technology had made it easier to complain (and the complaints really just an orchestrated campaign by a small vocal minority) rather that a broader disapproval of content brought on by an increase in objectionable material, then that ought to be considered. Hence my suggestion that the FCC should still continue to accept complaints but should provide some way of breaking them down so that the public is better informed as to what kind of complaints they’re getting and why.
In fairness to the cameraman, I again point out that at the beginning of the camera shot, the "f" is obscured. New Orleans is a city of t-shirts, and they run the gamut from the humorous to the suggestive to the outright vulgar. I'd be shocked to learn that nobody was selling shirts saying "pluck da Eagles". Once the "f" became clear, the camera cut away pretty quickly.
Fining Fox in this instance would be silly and a serious waste of government time and resources. If the FCC proceeds against Fox and its affiliates for this, I say F*** da FCC!
On Fark.com people in the comments noted that she's a singer in a band in New Orleans and hosts some sort of night at a bar or something. Numerous people said they knew her. There were also photos of her with a whole bunch of other people outside the stadium all wearing the same shirt (though not cut off like hers was), so it was bound to happen at some point that one of those shirts would get on the air.
Your comments generally illustrate the problem with liberal America - little to no regard for the family and what is best for children.
I went to grade school in the Forties and Fifties. Even in that comparatively innocent time, I heard the dreaded f word every single day at school. It didn't harm me as far as I can tell. I know where and when I can say the f word. I rarely use it. What's the big deal? How on earth does this carry any impact on decency among children?
If you don't want your children to see or hear the word, I would suggest home schooling and no television and no friends. Keep them isolated from the rough and tumble world and see how they adjust when they eventually have to face it.
I ask these questions since it seems that we should understand the message in terms of its context and use. It seems very unlikely that words and images are always “obscene” or "indecent" and even “obscene” and "indecent" words are necessary for their communicative force—see Cohen v. California.
As for the context of this image: It would be more reasonable to assume that the camera man in question focused on the girl because of the length of her shirt and not the message of her shirt.
Further, the shot in question occurred during a football game. The game of football is very violent and features a variety of sexual images throughout the broadcast of the game and the commercials. It seems that, if anything, the cameraman and the producer pandered to their audience.
Rather than showing little regard for the family, the producers of the show were providing entertainment for their audience. If parents do not find this form of entertainment best for their children, maybe they should have the children read, watch another show, or, considering the time, have them go to bed.
Have to second that. I had a recent project working with those guys. Simple minded idiots.
Allowing your children to watch a player writhing around on the ground in agonizing pain is ok, but seeing the word "fuck" is somehow going to emotionally scar your little shits?
I'm sick of it. What kind of milquetoast weakling kids are we raising that can't stand to see breasts or hear curses, or god forbid fall and get a scrape?
This about epitomizes the entire argument, doesn't it? People think the FCC is draconian and reactionary because they don't want television, which is easily accessible to children, to have the word 'fuck' are themselves unwilling to use it on a blog of adults in an academic setting. If using the word 'fuck' isn't a big deal, and is perfectly ok for kids to hear, why do you feel compelled to edit it out in your own writing, here, for adults, in an academic setting? You really believe the public airways should be less child friendly than this blog? You don't fucking think that the word 'fuck' coarsens and cheapens the environment? Fuck doesn't degrade the quality of the discussion? That exposing children to fuck isn't bad for them? What the fuck are you thinking?
Sk
Note: If the administrators of this blog want to censor out my words and chastize me for the above post, feel free. The post is self-evidently in poor taste, adds nothing to the conversation, and coarsens the environment. Even I am mature enough to see that. Unlike those other miserable fucks who somehow think 'everybody says it, so it doesn't matter you fucking religious prude.' Fucking idiots.
Sk
:)
Yes, I've done that more than a few times with the lefty forms that my lefty friends forward to me from lefty sites. Fun!
Sk
Sk
Can they fine you?
Haha. If that's the best you can do, I can see that I have won.
Sk
You say that as though it were a bad thing.
It's the culture of public problems. The route to power is to make up a ``public problem'' and take ownership of it.
Today's rhetorical strategies are outlined by sociologist Joseph R. Gusfield (_Contested Meanings : The Culture of Alcohol Problems_ U Wisc 1996), and the list can be taken as a how-to primer or as an explanation of modern dysfunctional government.
See also Wilson, Meredith, "Ya got trouble", River City, 1957.
I want to know about the cheerleaders. Less than a tenth of the people who see the game are at the stadium, and during the course of the televised game there's a total of what, a minute of cheerleader shot? So except for a few calendars and posters, how does everybody know just how hot these cheerleaders are? (Disclaimer: I'm in Patriots territory.)
His comment generally illustrates the problem with socially-conservative America -- little or no regard for MY ideas about what constitues "regard for the family" (in particular, MY family) and what is best for MY children. I have no problem with my children seeing, hearing, or using the word "fuck" (though I've tried to teach them that there are times when it is probably inappropriate for them to use it -- specifically, to avoid hurting the tender feelings of folks like a DC Resident and HIS children), and I'm not sure why A DC Resident cares what my children see or hear. And you know what? Fuck him!
Can someone present the serious case that seeing the word on a T-shirt has any detrimental effect on anyone?
Before anyone mentions the kids, how did the kids get along in all those many years when everyone lived under one roof (or in one bed in the cold) and privacy hadn't yet been invented?
Well, let's see.
"Of course, this all ignores the fact that you hear a dozen f-bombs in a football or basketball game from the field/court mikes." JRL doesn't think its appropriate-he uses 'f-bomb' to avoid it.
"I went to grade school in the Forties and Fifties. Even in that comparatively innocent time, I heard the dreaded f word every single day at school." Visitoragain doesn't think its appropriate-he avoids it with 'the dreaded f word'
"I say F*** da FCC!" PatHMV doesn't think its appropriate-he says 'F***'
Note that these are people who AGREE with you, and they are sensitive enough to censor their own speech in a blog AIMED AT ADULT, ACADEMIC DISCUSSIONS.
Are you really still pretending to not get it? Censoring our own speech here, because its inappropriate, while simultaneously arguing that censoring the exact same word in a public forum is unacceptable, is logically incompatible. This is absolutely impossible to not understand and not acknowledge. How are you pretending to do so?
Sk
So, you don't understand the distinction between self-censorship and state regulation? You think all humans are incapable of making the same distinction, and the government should do it for us? We should depend on the government for our ethical distinctions? How is that conservative, or pro-family?
IMO, the issue isn't whether the word is appropriate or inappropriate. It's whether it should be finable in this instance. To me there is a difference in the gratutitous use of vulgarity (see "the Sopranos") and a (possibly) inadvertant glimpse of a tee-shirt for about 3/4 of a second at full speed. Do I think that the wearer of the shirt had no taste? yup. Do I necessarily want my kids to be hearing / seeing representations of vulgarity so often thay they think it's a legitimate form of communication? No. Do I feel that this case should be actionable? no. I watched the game, and didn't see this occur. Don't know how i missed it, I would have fallen down laughing. I feel that the standard of when to levy fines should take into account more than just the ire of the incessant complainers. Accidents happen. If my kids had been watching it, and had seen it, we would have had another round of discussions about propriety in public, and self-respect. but I wouldn't like to see the stations fined for it.
So, what's wrong with the word "Fuck?" What's wrong with it when used by adults in academic discussions? That's the word we are discussing, isn't it?
But the T-shirt did NOT say "Fk Da Eagles".
I see no reason to take seriously the concerns of people who can't even state their complaint correctly...
Well I don't actually know what Volokh's view on using the f word in public is. I don't know that he would kick me off this blog; I just fear he or others might kick me off. He's got people censoring themselves, perhaps censoring themselves beyond what is necessary. That's the problem with vague and formless rules limiting speech--free speech doesn't get the breathing space it needs to survive. There comes a point, of course, where participating in the comments no longer is worth the trouble.
As kc said, here's a substantial difference between using the censored version in favor of the uncensored version because you choose to, and because some government agency is forcing you to. Although that isn't what's happening here.
This isn't a public forum, much as we'd like to think so. We're directed by the management to refrain from profanity as a condition of commenting.
Nobody would have any objection if the NFL, as part of the terms of its licensing agreements with the networks, put forward rules prohibiting profanity during a broadcast. As a private entity, such restrictions are totally within their rights. The FCC, however, is another example of the government deciding a standard of morality for individuals, and imposing that standard onto others.
Even those of us who would like to be able to watch football games with our children and have made the understandable personal decision that profanity is not appropriate for their own child should recognize that the government should not be choosing for them what is and is not appropriate. Should the FCC have been a differently motivated organization that demanded a ban of "any religious symbols" even hardened atheists should be equally incensed.
It's not about this woman's shirt having such redeeming social value that we are robbed of art by its censorship. It's about what decisions are proper for us to release into the hands of a government agency.
That those who run this blog are not engaged in state action, that they have the power to censor, does not mean the policies they adopt in that regard are beyond criticism. Volokh's vague "be civil" policy coupled with fairly rigorous enforcement--I've seen quite a few commenters suspended, often without announcement of reason (I wasn't even told I was kicked out; I found out when I could no longer post messages)--inhibits a good deal of speech. And to me that kind of broad and arbitrary censorship is objectionable whether it's accomplished by state action or not.
My judgment is that the real reason for some of the suspensions has been disagreement with what the commenter has said on the merits. I've seen a double standard followed, sometimes in the same thread; the leftist has been "disciplined" and the reactionary has been allowed to continue although both were "guilty" of the same violation of the civility standard. On one occasion, the leftist was merely responding in kind to a reactionary who had provoked him, yet it was the leftist who got kicked out. I called Volokh on it, and he responded with something like "I can't be expected to spend the time making sure the policy is evenly enforced."
The vast majority of the posters here are right wingers. I come here to find out what they are thinking (and in the process I sometimes learn things I didn't know). That has a value to me, but only so much value. I try to abide by the civility policy so I can keep participating. But should I ever get kicked out again, I won't bother coming back, even though I do much more commenting here than anyplace else on the web.